Sexism in the Ruby community: how does the Python community manage it?

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 02:07:48 +1100, Chris Angelico wrote:

> Thing is, it's all very well to avoid using one particular module
> because you don't like its name... but what happens when there are a
> goodly number of such ill-named modules? Let's suppose you don't like
> the name "readline" because it offends your religion. (I'm deliberately
> picking something that I can't imagine actually being offensive; my
> sincere and humble apologies if there is anyone who actually IS offended
> by that name.) You might be able to use libedit instead, but what if
> that name also is offensive to you? (Again, apologies if it really is.)
> How long are you going to poke around for alternative modules before you
> throw your hands up and say "This language sucks, all its modules have
> stupid names"?

Okay, I get that you're not actually talking about people being offended 
by modules literally called "readline" and "libedit". I'm not really sure 
what conclusion we're supposed to draw from this little thought-
experiment:

- We need a Committee For Decent Module Names to vet the names 
  allowed to be used for modules, libraries and frameworks lest 
  they offend somebody?

- If people are that easily offended, we're better off without 
  them in the community? 

- You're not actually talking about Python, but some other 
  hypothetical language community where 8 out of 10 module 
  authors have the emotional maturity of a fourteen-year-old boy?

- Something else?


> Or do you mean that you'd use something despite its offensive name,
> because the name doesn't bother you? If so, awesome for you, but
> unfortunately not everyone is so generous :)

Really? I'm not actually sure that would be so awesome.

I would be far more annoyed if people *used* a module called 
"kill_all_redheads" than by the mere existence of such a module. If the 
module exists, and actually does something useful, well, that's one 
immature or crackpot individual. Or perhaps its meant to be taken 
ironically, or as a joke, or the author is making some obscure point I'm 
not smart enough to get. Whatever. But if many people actually used this 
module, when they could use something else, or fork it under a different 
name, or re-engineer its functionality, that suggests that maybe they see 
nothing wrong with the sentiments expressed by it. And that would 
distress me more than the module name itself.

Some yahoo has written a module called "upskirt"? Pfft, that's what 
yahoos do. I don't condone it, but as an isolated incident I don't lose 
any sleep over it either. That same module is (hypothetically) put into 
the standard library under that name, or widely used throughout the 
community? *That* would be a worry.


> Personally, I would avoid using profane names, if only because I don't
> like trying to explain to my boss what it is I'm using.

So you only use sacred names? Isn't that blasphemous?


> "You use Python?
> What's that?" "It's a language, named after a comedy group." "Great!" -
> vs - "You use Brainf--? What's that?" "Uhh... it's a language... that I
> don't like to say the name of. Uhh...." - awkward. 

But not *anywhere* near as awkward as explain why you're using Brainfuck 
instead of, well, *just about any other friggin' language in the world*. 
It's a language designed to be mind-blowingly difficult to use. And 
you're using it instead of Forth or APL because...?

I'm not actually missing the point. I'm pointing out that you appear to 
be inventing a problem that doesn't exist. When was the last time you 
were in the position of having to choose whether or not to use an actual 
useful product that had an embarrassing or offensive name?


> Same with module
> names. When I watched a Ruby app installing itself, I googled a few of
> the gem names out of morbid curiosity, and to be quite frank, I dislike
> a lot of them. Module names should be descriptive, not fancy. And I
> really don't think they need profanity, which some people apparently
> disagree with.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. Are you suggesting that the Ruby 
community does have a problem with obscene names that are not just 
widespread, but in widespread use? Well, that's certainly an interesting 
data point.



-- 
Steven